Predicting global distributions of eukaryotic plankton communities from satellite data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Satellite remote sensing is a powerful tool to monitor the global dynamics of marine plankton. Previous research has focused on developing models to predict the size or taxonomic groups of phytoplankton. Here, we present an approach to identify community types from a global plankton network that includes phytoplankton and heterotrophic protists and to predict their biogeography using global satellite observations. Six plankton community types were identified from a co-occurrence network inferred using a novel rDNA 18 S V4 planetary-scale eukaryotic metabarcoding dataset. Machine learning techniques were then applied to construct a model that predicted these community types from satellite data. The model showed an overall 67% accuracy in the prediction of the community types. The prediction using 17 satellite-derived parameters showed better performance than that using only temperature and/or the concentration of chlorophyll a. The constructed model predicted the global spatiotemporal distribution of community types over 19 years. The predicted distributions exhibited strong seasonal changes in community types in the subarctic-subtropical boundary regions, which were consistent with previous field observations. The model also identified the long-term trends in the distribution of community types, which suggested responses to ocean warming.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".